Justice for 9/11 Mastermind

Despite the heinousness of the actions of several suspected terrorists, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, the federal court system is perfectly capable of addressing these crimes and bringing these individuals to justice.

The justification for military tribunals largely encompasses claims that the civilian court system is not up to the task of trying suspected terrorists. Tribunal supporters complain about using classified information in open court, and about threats to courts, judges and jurors. They say terrorists don’t deserve basic procedural protections.

The best argument in response is to look at how our federal courts have successfully addressed terrorism cases.

Here in Albany, there already has been a successful terrorism prosecution, that of Yasin Aref and Mohammed Hossain. The case involved the extensive use of classified information, which was addressed by the court under the Classified Information Procedures Act.

Rather than shy away from the challenge, the case was ably handled by Northern District Judge Thomas McAvoy and Magistrate Judge David Homer. Aref and Hossain were represented by two distinguished defense attorneys who fought for their rights. Both men were provided with all of the procedural and legal protections accorded by the civilian legal system. Most importantly, this process, with the exception of the court’s review of classified information, was done in the light of day, where ordinary people could assess the government’s case, look at the proof against the defendants and reach their own conclusions about their guilt.

This process also has played out in cases involving the first World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing and Zacarias Moussaoui. Since the 9/11 attacks, more than 145 terrorism cases have been successfully prosecuted in federal courts without incident or major difficulty.

In contrast, only three individuals have been prosecuted by military tribunals, and two of them were released after a year.

While there have been some improvements as of late, military tribunals lack established procedures. They are tried in front of military officers, not federal judges who respect the need for fairness and equity in judicial proceedings. Second-hand evidence (hearsay) will be allowed, and suspected terrorists will not have access to exculpatory information. Also, there will be no right to exclude information that was illegally obtained by government officials, such as through torture. There will be almost no public oversight of their proceedings.

For every Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, there is an Omar Khadr, the 15-year-old Canadian who was arrested during a firefight on the battlefield in Afghanistan and is scheduled to be tried in front of a military tribunal. It is expedient for a government official to unilaterally brand someone a “terrorist” and demand their execution in front of an ad hoc kangaroo court; it is much harder to do that in front of 12 neutral jurors and a neutral judge.

The hallmarks of American justice are transparency, respect for the rights of the accused and respect for the rule of law. Ignoring those values is to send us down a slippery slope — one we have already slipped down over the past several years with warrantless wiretapping and domestic surveillance.

We, as a society, have nothing to fear from allowing the federal courts, and their established procedures, to address terrorism cases.

If these alleged terrorists are guilty of what the government claims, then justice will prevail upon them in due time — without mercy.